ELIAS V. PACETE, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS, RESPONDENT.

In a verified complaint dated January 8, 1975 City Attorney of General Santos City Elias
V. Pacete charged Judge Pedro Samson C. Animas of the
Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I, General
Santos City,
of serious misconduct and inefficiency with prayer for preventive suspension or
temporary transfer to other station.

This administrative matter arose from Miscellaneous Case No. 379,
a proceeding for the issuance of Owner’s Duplicate of Certificate of Title No.
(T-4884) (T-414) T-108 filed with the court presided by the respondent judge on
February 1, 1974.  The complainant, as City Attorney of the City
of General Santos where the property
is located, filed an opposition to the petition.  Notice of the hearing was duly published and
the Solicitor General was notified thereof. 
After hearing, the respondent rendered a decision on October 14, 1974 granting the
petition for the annulment of the lost title and directing the Register of
Deeds of General Santos City to issue a new Owner’s Duplicate of Transfer
Certificate of Title in the name of the petitioner.  The complainant filed a motion for
reconsideration on November 25, 1974
which was opposed by the petitioner.  The
motion was set for hearing on November
29, 1974.  The petitioner
filed also on November 29, 1974
but before the hearing a Motion for Immediate Execution of the Judgment
rendered on October 14, 1974.

The acts complained of were allegedly committed by the respondent
during the hearing held on November
29, 1974 and subsequently thereafter.

The complainant asserted that the respondent judge committed (1)
gross partiality and/or undue interest by the outright denial of complainant’s
verbal motion to file a reply to the opposition to the motion for reconsideration;
(2) gross irregularity by taking the cudgels for the petitioner during the
hearing and granting the motion for immediate execution of the judgment which
motion is a mere scrap of paper because there was no service thereof on the oppositor, the same was not set for hearing and the said
motion was filed only a few minutes before the hearing set on November 29,
1974; that moreover, the order of execution did not contain any good reason for
the immediate execution of the judgment; and (3) improper, temperamental,
unjust and oppressive acts in that during the hearing of November 29, 1974, the
respondent shouted at, berated, humiliated and defamed the complainant who was
called a corrupt public official who should resign as City Attorney in the
presence of lawyers, litigants and court personnel simply because the complainant
refused to receive the motion for immediate execution tendered to him prior to
the said hearing.  The complainant also
assailed the allegedly grossly irregular actuations of respondent, amounting to
serious misconduct, in amending the order dated February 8, 1974 setting the petition
for hearing several times and branding the opposition to the petition as
unmeritorious and allowing the petitioner to submit his evidence ex-parte before the Deputy Clerk of Court.  The said order of February 8, 1974 was amended by an order dated February 15, 1974 directing that the
hearing and presentation of evidence be held before the Court on March 15, 1974, with copy furnished
the Solicitor General.  Another order
dated March 10, 1974 re-set
the hearing to June 10, 1974.  Subsequently an order dated June 10, 1974 was
again issued directing the publication of the petition and order for three (3)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in General Santos City
with the hearing set on June 25, 1974 at 8:00 o’clock in the morning.  It was only on August 8, 1974 when the evidence of the petitioner was
ultimately presented.

In his comment the respondent asserted that the charges of
alleged gross partiality and/or undue influence in dismissing the complainant’s
verbal motion to file a reply to the opposition to his motion for
reconsideration, the alleged actuation of the respondent in taking the cudgels
for the petitioner’s cause in arguing the opposition to complainant’s motion
for reconsideration during the hearing on November 29, 1974, and the granting
of the uncalendared last minute motion for immediate
execution of the judgment are all without factual basis.  The respondent submitted that said charges
were not substantiated and were only made to harass and embarrass him.  The motion for reconsideration is not only
moot and academic but also pro-forma for it was filed on November 25, 1974 after the lapse of
forty (40) days when the complainant received the decision on October 15, 1974 and said motion
discussed the same issues raised in complainant’s memorandum.

On the charge of gross
denial of equal protection of the law amounting to serious misconduct in
granting the immediate execution of the judgment based on a motion that is pro-forma
without notice of hearing and proof of service, the respondent, among
other things, said that as far as the oppositor City
of General Santos is concerned, the judgment had long become final.  Anent the lack of good reasons for the
issuance of the order of execution the respondent averred that the good reasons
were the requirement of the posting of a bond and the statement that the
judgment had become final.  Moreover, the
appeal was merely to prolong and delay the proceedings.

On the charge of gross
irregularity in the performance of duty amounting to serious misconduct by
constantly amending his orders, the explanation of the respondent reads:

“It will be sufficient to state that the various postponements
were made at the instance of the complainant and the court in the interest of
justice pursuant to its power ‘to amend and control its processes and orders so
as to make them conformable to law and justice’ (Sec. 5, Par. (g), Rule 135, Rules of Court).  If we erred in our orders, it was made in
good faith and could not be the subject matter of an administrative
action.” (pp. 39-40, Rollo)

The comment submitted by
the respondent traversing each and every specification of the complaint appears
plausible.  It is to be noted that the
case from which the charges stemmed is only for the issuance of a duplicate
copy of a lost transfer certificate of title. 
The order of the respondent for the publication of the petition and the
notice of hearing with notice to the Solicitor General cannot be considered
gross partiality and irregularity considering the great value of the property
embraced in the title.  The amendments of
the respondent’s orders may be considered as a judicious step taken by
respondent to give every opportunity to all interested parties, especially the
government, to assert whatever rights and interest they may have in the
property the title to which was sought to be reconstituted.

The respondent did not err in issuing the order of execution of
its judgment which had become final and executory
when the motion for reconsideration was filed by the complainant.  In the order of execution the respondent even
required the posting of a bond that will protect the interest of the government
for unpaid taxes due on the property in question.

As regards the charge of oppression and temperamental conduct of
respondent by allegedly shouting at the complainant and portraying the latter
as a corrupt public official, the respondent explained that he was provoked by
the insistence of the complainant in arguing the case and making innuendoes of
partiality and lack of competence on the part of respondent.

The alleged insistence of the complainant to argue the case is
not sufficient provocation.  The
respondent is bound to observe the rules of courteous decorum in his relations
with lawyers, parties and the general public. 
He should refrain from insulting language and offensive conduct.

In Jugueta
vs. Boncaros,^[1] this Court said:

“One who occupies an exalted position in the administration of
justice must pay a high price for the honor bestowed upon him, for his private
as well as his official conduct must at all times be free from the appearance
of impropriety.”

There is no basis for taking any administrative action against
the respondent as regards the other charges.

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint is dismissed but
the respondent, Judge Pedro Samson C. Animas, is hereby admonished to refrain
from resorting to insulting language in his future judicial actuations.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro,
and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

^[1]
60 SCRA 27, 31.